All men are not created equal. Obviously an NBA basketball player can play his game better than you or I. Obviously a chess grandmaster can play better chess than you or I. A man is created not only by nature and god, but by parents, society and, believe it or not, by himself. A man creates himself as much, if not more, than anything else. It is wrong to believe that all men are created equal.

Government should treat equal men equally. Treating equal men equally does not, however, mean that we should gift money and other assets to one man that does not have as much as another. Treating equal men equally does not mean that equal men should not flourish differently. Government should, however, try that all equal men can survive with happiness.

All equal men should have the right to an occupation that allows survival with happiness.

All equal men should NOT have the right to an unequal number of unequal children to be raised as equals by government.

Government should not treat unequal men equally by distorting classifications, metrics and other parameters by which we distribute the fruits of labor and the reaping of government. It is by these lies of measurement that unequal treatment by government exists.

All men are not created equally. Government favors some under the guise of survival of the favored, the entitled, the lucky and the champion. It is accepted under the decree that the fittest shall survive. Those that government and society decree are the fittest (not those that actually are) flourish and prosper as per government regulation.

Small wonder the ‘Judicial’ system of Italy is so eager to engage in the press. They spam, lie, fabricate, commit serial calumny and sue anybody that replies with truth and fact.

There isn’t one piece of evidence that is more than dubious.

Nobody’s best interest is served by letting Amanda and Raffaele be framed for crimes they didn’t commit. You and I would just go to jail for the rest of our lives without a line in the newspapers. Defend Amanda and you defend yourself. It’s now or never….

A. We will never know for sure, but the few studies that have been done estimate that between 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent (for context, if just 1% of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 20,000 innocent people are in prison).
More broadly, we know that innocent people are often identified as suspects by law enforcement and that DNA testing often clears them before they go to trial, but that DNA testing is impossible in the vast majority of criminal cases. In approximately 25% of cases where DNA testing was done by the FBI during the course of investigations, suspects were excluded by the testing. That doesn’t mean we believe 25% of convictions are in error, but when coupled with the fact that DNA testing is only possible in 5-10% of all criminal cases, it shows that science cannot always clear innocent suspects, which can result in wrongful convictions.

Where DNA testing was possible, many suspects were excluded. If only 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent, then 46,000 to 100,000 of the two million incarcerated are innocent. The damage done to this people is by no means limited to the incarceration period. The time and money that people spend defending themselves is a hell on earth not only to the defendants, but their entire families. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito have spent in excess of six years and four million dollars defending themselves.

The innocent spend more time and money defending themselves because they know they are innocent. The guilty just plead down and try to minimize the expense and the sentence.

Bear in mind that this is in progress and presently the result of a minute of research and a few minutes writing. It will be expanded and enhanced. All areas of great national pride will be examined.

Please go to the site of white house petitions and sign this petition.

we petition the obama administration to:

The right to form new governments/territories

Because one government will never be right for all the people all the time, people should be given the right to secede from this government to form new governments/territories. In lieu of taxes, land could be rented from the USA.

We feel that democracy, government, capitalism, the constitution, justice, taxation, education, prisons, schools, religion, the police, income redistribution, foods, laws, drug use, zoning, jobs, welfare, gun ownership and taxes can all be tailored in great variety to suit our individual needs. We feel that one government does not fit all.

Please go to the site of white house petitions and sign this petition. It makes the statement that government can be made better in every way. If you don’t believe government can be made better in every way, just keep asking yourself “How could I make voting better”, or “How could a system make my representation better”. Question everything. If you are creative and objective, you will soon discover that ours is not the best government that we can ever have. Sign the petition to encourage others to think for themselves. Signing the petition only empowers humankind.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

The Italian Judiciary has debauched these considerations. They have ruled against the right to a fair trial. They have darkened the “light of science”. They have fabricated the truth, they have saddled mankind with the task of undoing their favored defecations. The representation-less conviction of Amanda and Raffaele in the trial of Guede has destroyed the grounds for hope of all.

The following is part of an Internet discussion. It seems plausible. Check it out yourself. Please leave a comment in the comments section if this discussion is in any way incorrect.

Lince wrote: They have very own version of logic and common sense. I have no doubt that their version of probability theory is equally inventive. For example, maybe in their osmosis approach they simply add probabilities of such extremely unlikely claims together. Even if single probabilities are quite/very low, sheer number of such statements can bring the total sum close to 100% (i.e., probability 1). Ergo, “beyond reasonable doubt” is soundly demonstrated.

Francisco wrote: There is no maybe about it. This was the tactic Crini took in his appeal and Cassation completely agreed, as was written in their motivation. I fully expect Nencini’s report will be more of the same… took rulings from previous trials not involving Amanda and Raffaele as rulings of fact against them and then did the osmosis thing to make all those irrelevant tidbits add up to something they consider meaningful.

Justinian wrote: Probability theory is taught in high school in America. Usually grade 10. It’s hard to believe that the entire prosecution team, the appeals courts and the ISC missed these courses that are/were required by high school students in the USA!

At the epicenter for my total disgust of civilization today is the abomination of legal remedies for the causation of harm and injury. (A.K.A. Justice.) No where is this judicial malfeasance more obvious than with the case of Amanda Knox. It’s much worse to incarcerate an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free (as they have frequently in Florida). The reason is that it is the sole purpose and job of government to protect the rights of their citizens. A government, our government, should, bottom line, protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Absolutely from the malfeasance of external governments like Italy!

Judge Claudio Hellmann said there was “A substantive nonexistence of evidence” and found Amanda and Raffaele not just “Not Guilty – Insufficient Evidence” but he used the rarely used term of “Innocent: – Did Not commit the crime.” Amanda returned home after his trial.

But the Italian Supreme Court overturned the decision of his court and Amanda could potentially be extradited back to Italy.

This video is from a recent news show in the UK. Each of Those DNA Tests has Exonerated Her The Italian ‘Expert’ being interviewed says there is a lot of evidence. Yes, there are, for example, ten pieces of evidence in addition to the mentioned DNA evidence that show reasonable doubt that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon. This isn’t ‘A Lot’ of evidence for the prosecution. This is ten pieces of evidence that each refute the knife as the murder weapon. These are ten reasons for having reasonable doubt that the knife is the murder weapon. Collectively they constitute 100% proof that the knife is NOT the murder weapon.

The probability that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon is probably less than .00000001=(.01)^4. The only reason that the defense would keep drawing attention to it is because it is a ‘Red Herring’ (a distraction). Mathematically the probability that the knife is the murder weapon are all the ‘reasonable doubts’ multiplied together. The reasonable doubts: Randomly picked, wrong size for the wounds, wrong size for the stain on the bed sheet, no blood, no cellular material, LCN DNA, not found at the murder scene, etc. They should remember that the highest probability is one.

This is the ‘connecting logic’: the probability that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon is zero (non-existent). Therefore, discussion of DNA on a non-existent murder weapon is a waste of time.

I would say that there are four types of people. There are teachers, students, peers (those who teach and learn from each other), and fools (those that know not that they know not.)

The four types of people:

The peer. Peers will learn from and teach each other.

The teacher. He will recognize students that want to learn and can learn. He will teach with sound data and sources. He will use good logic, extrapolate well and stamp out false sources and logical fallacies.

The student. He will listen, question wisely, and learn. He will be polite and respectful. He will exchange for his training. He knows there is something to learn. He is wise enough to know that he can learn and doesn’t know everything.

The fool. He will be disruptive and disrespectful. He will rationalize, use false logic and use fallacies. He will use poor sources of information. He will neither learn or teach. He may think he knows it all already.